Ah, it seems another one of my little notes to try to keep these alternate histories more realistic when it comes to viewing the proportion and perspective of the U.S. versus other parts of the world in earlier eras of history that aren't idealistic to "nationalistic-themed alternate history portrayals" where it's the U.S. in a void until and when the U.S. interacts with another part of the world always collapses like a house of cards, regardless of how realistic for that era of time for that era of time it would have been, is ignored utterly without comment and a move on action is done. This is done VERY often on this sub-forum. I feel like, when I make such commentary and advice on historic realistic, I'm viewed like everyone's Uncle Vernon Dursley when they want to have flights of fancy unfettered by the laws of reality.

-It is found on June 3,1913 That Alton B Parker of New York is found guitly on over 10 million,yes 10 million,counts of voter fraud after it was found that with help of the democratic party that Parker modified and tampered with voting results, The Last election it was found the La Follete would have been the one to claim victory,there is an ongoing investigation of the 1908 election.

Ford/Lodge(rep) vs Bryan/Marshsall (I)(dem)----One of the more close elections in our series,However running for the party that just had the most major scandal in history,doesn't give the best of luck. -----Note: Lodge was Conklings VP 20 years ago.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

-It is found on June 3,1913 That Alton B Parker of New York is found guitly on over 10 million,yes 10 million,counts of voter fraud after it was found that with help of the democratic party that Parker modified and tampered with voting results, The Last election it was found the La Follete would have been the one to claim victory,there is an ongoing investigation of the 1908 election.

Bryans 1st term

-Backed American currency with silver

-Evaded war with Germany

-Imposed slight regulations on buisness

-Subsized farmers,and also gave them tax breaks

-raised company tax

-Scandal free,well liked,But being a democrat holds him down

-Approval 45%

Why did Bryans, who was a running mate, get the full Presidency after this debacle?

Parker admitted to the court that Bryan had absolutely nothing to do with the controversy, the only reason he chose Bryan, a man of the farmer,and against big business,was to unify the party,as Parker was all for big business. They really had no liking for each other,though Parker did save Bryan for the presidency by admitting his innocence. Bryan completely condemned the democratic party as a whole,and whoever was involved. At this point he turned into the Trump kind of anti-government stance. So in the election I just posted were he went against Ford,both of them were against corrupt government, Both of them were highly approved of (kind of the opposite of the 2016 election).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Parker admitted to the court that Bryan had absolutely nothing to do with the controversy, the only reason he chose Bryan, a man of the farmer,and against big business,was to unify the party,as Parker was all for big business. They really had no liking for each other,though Parker did save Bryan for the presidency by admitting his innocence. Bryan completely condemned the democratic party as a whole,and whoever was involved. At this point he turned into the Trump kind of anti-government stance. So in the election I just posted were he went against Ford,both of them were against corrupt government, Both of them were highly approved of (kind of the opposite of the 2016 election).

And what about the navy thing I mentioned earlier you kind of didn't respond to?

Actually haven't even checked the comments,just went back and did,I'm happy this is actually getting interest.

The presidents in this series dating all the way back to Grant have had very "protective minds",and they have also been power hungry except for La Follete,Post Cival war the focus has been on eventually being the colonial power of the world,and things will be brewing for the African continent depending who wins later on,expansion wise.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Actually haven't even checked the comments,just went back and did,I'm happy this is actually getting interest.

The presidents in this series dating all the way back to Grant have had very "protective minds",and they have also been power hungry except for La Follete,Post Cival war the focus has been on eventually being the colonial power of the world,and things will be brewing for the African continent depending who wins later on,expansion wise.

But will you take into account that the British and French (moreso than the others, honestly) were already entrenched and VERY powerful colonial powers, and Britain had a HUGE navy with more coaling stations and full-facility ports under it's own sovereign control than all other navies in the world combined at that time, and they wouldn't fold like a house of cards, or with any ease at all, if the U.S. had taken a shining to colonize Africa or other areas they hadn't historically?

But will you take into account that the British and French (moreso than the others, honestly) were already entrenched and VERY powerful colonial powers, and Britain had a HUGE navy with more coaling stations and full-facility ports under it's own sovereign control than all other navies in the world combined at that time, and they wouldn't fold like a house of cards, or with any ease at all, if the U.S. had taken a shining to colonize Africa or other areas they hadn't historically?

All the presidents who approved upon history brought an abundance of factory workers with it,meaning tons of ships,will America be successful in there "late" colonization or Africa? Perhaps. But they may take advantage of the distraction or WW2 when it comes around. From the Italins, and Germans,depending on whose president we may see nothing happen as we have with president Bryan avoiding WW1 entirely. Though the industrial boom didnt matter because the US has been in a constant state of it.

-Also with Cleveland disbanding the Democrats he was defidently in over his head. The National Democrats were a rising party but as I've noted fell hard after his loss. I guess you could say so far that has been the Progressive Party of this election, ex:The election of 1912 irl

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

All the presidents who approved upon history brought an abundance of factory workers with it,meaning tons of ships,will America be successful in there "late" colonization or Africa? Perhaps. But they may take advantage of the distraction or WW2 when it comes around. From the Italins, and Germans,depending on whose president we may see nothing happen as we have with president Bryan avoiding WW1 entirely. Though the industrial boom didnt matter because the US has been in a constant state of it.

Are you saying they ignore WW2 as well, by term "distraction" for it? The Japanese weren't liable to leave them alone even without the bank freezes and oil embargos - they wanted the Pacific Islands the U.S. controlled and to neutralize the U.S. Pacific Fleet in any case. Germany and Italy weren't in a hurry for war with the U.S., but Japan was a different story - and you don't just ignore an outright attack by a nation like Japan if you have any sense in your head.

Are you saying they ignore WW2 as well, by term "distraction" for it? The Japanese weren't liable to leave them alone even without the bank freezes and oil embargos - they wanted the Pacific Islands the U.S. controlled and to neutralize the U.S. Pacific Fleet in any case. Germany and Italy weren't in a hurry for war with the U.S., but Japan was a different story - and you don't just ignore an outright attack by a nation like Japan if you have any sense in your head.

Japan is all accounts will not be ignored,and depending who is at the helm,talks may be held with Germany and Italy, If a very passive president comes into office. Will those talks work? probably not but we shall see.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Japan is all accounts will not be ignored,and depending who is at the helm,talks may be held with Germany and Italy, If a very passive president comes into office. Will those talks work? probably not but we shall see.

Keep in mind that, although the "Axis" was on paper a cohesive military alliance with unified objectives, and is firmly portrayed as such in strategy games like the classic Axis & Allies, in truth, Japan operated almost entirely in a strategic and political void from the European Axis, trading only declarations and speeches of solidarity and congratulations for each others' military and political victories. There was no meeting of all three Axis leaders (or even very senior military officers from all three nations) during the war in anywhere near an analog to the Tehran or Yalta meetings, or even any plans or attempt for such a meeting. Hitler first heard about the Pearl Harbour bombings the same way most people in the world at the time did - on the radio news.

Keep in mind that, although the "Axis" was on paper a cohesive military alliance with unified objectives, and is firmly portrayed as such in strategy games like the classic Axis & Allies, in truth, Japan operated almost entirely in a strategic and political void from the European Axis, trading only declarations and speeches of solidarity and congratulations for each others' military and political victories. There was no meeting of all three Axis leaders (or even very senior military officers from all three nations) during the war in anywhere near an analog to the Tehran or Yalta meetings, or even any plans or attempt for such a meeting. Hitler first heard about the Pearl Harbour bombings the same way most people in the world at the time did - on the radio news.